Secrecy Secures Scandal-free Image

Advocates of Virginia's unusual system of allowing lawmakers to appoint almost all state judges defend it by pointing to the results: a relatively scandal-free judiciary.

Only four judges in the past 15 years have been censured or publicly reprimanded by the state Supreme Court; only one has been removed from office for conduct unbefitting a judge.

"The proof," Attorney General Mary Sue Terry said, "is in the pudding."

But there's a catch.

The public is only entitled to know about behavior so improper that the state's Judicial Review Inquiry Commission refers the case to the state Supreme Court. Only those five cases have been referred in the past 15 years.

All other findings of improper conduct, including letters of censure from the oversight board, are shielded from the public by law. It is illegal for anyone to reveal that a complaint has been filed against a judge or to reveal the outcome of a review. Not even the person making the complaint is informed of the outcome.

Reno Harp III, attorney for the judicial review commission, says he interprets the state constitution to mean that he cannot even reveal the number of complaints filed annually against Virginia's judges or how many have received private letters of censure.

Harp refused to talk specifically about the types of complaints made. He said the complaints reviewed by the commission are similar to those filed against judges in other states, such as charges of improper conduct on the bench, running behind in cases, conflicts-of-interest and improper social behavior.

Lawmakers and judges contend the secrecy is necessary to make sure that unfair accusations are not leveled against Virginia's judges, compromising their ability to serve effectively.

The law will soon be tested in court. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit against the commission on behalf of two individuals who were denied information on the outcome of complaints they filed against two different judges.

State lawmakers say they are sometimes informed of actions taken by the review commission when they meet behind closed doors to determine if a judge is qualified to be reappointed.

Some said they have reprimanded judges during the private committee hearings. Such private reprimands, said state Sen. Joseph Gartlan, D-Fairfax, usually serve as enough warning.

"Even though it doesn't go any further, a finding by that commission can scare the hell out of somebody and have the effect of straightening someone up," he said.

"The other thing is we don't elect most judges for life; we get the chance to look at someone anew if we get reliable reports of strange behavior."

Circuit judges are appointed for eight-year terms; seldom are they denied reappointment.

Lawmakers also note that judges are bound by the state's Canons of Judicial Conduct to observe high standards of conduct and integrity. The canons restrict political and business activities, forbidding judges to practice law or raise money for political campaigns and charities.

A judge is also forbidden to engage in financial ventures with persons with whom he routinely deals in court.

It is rare for a judge to be publicly found in violation of those canons. In 1977, Richmond Circuit Court Judge Harold C. Maurice was removed from the bench and stripped of retirement benefits for drinking on the job and giving away beer and confiscated alcohol and guns.

That is the only impeachment of a Virginia judge since 1907, when a Newport News man lost his judgeship for being routinely late for work and drunk.